Paige v. State, 126 A.3d 793

On April 14, 2013 Macy’s loss prevention officers observed Labria Paige and two juveniles select merchandise, enter a fitting-room stall together, and exit the store; Macy’s agents detained them and recovered merchandise in a foil‑lined bag.
Paige struggled when apprehended outside Macy’s, was handcuffed by Macy’s personnel, and escorted to a private loss‑prevention office (≈20x20 ft., door closed).
In the office Paige made an oral admission before police arrived; later she signed Macy’s forms (statement of admission, trespass notice, civil demand) while a Howard County officer (Officer Bush) stood in the room but did not question her or direct Macy’s.
Paige was charged with theft < $1,000, moved to suppress her written statements as involuntary and obtained in Miranda custody, and objected at trial to Macy’s loss‑prevention officer Salley narrating surveillance video.
The motions court denied suppression (found Macy’s acted privately and Officer Bush played no active custodial/interrogative role); the trial court admitted Salley’s live narration during video playback.
Paige was convicted; on appeal the Court of Special Appeals affirmed on both the Miranda/custody and the video‑narration issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Paige was in custody for Miranda purposes when she signed written admissions	Paige: presence of police officer in closed loss‑prevention office, handcuffs earlier, and constrained setting made it custodial — Miranda warnings required	State/Macy’s: loss‑prevention employees were private actors, Officer Bush was passive and did not direct interrogation; Miranda not triggered	Court: No Miranda violation — Macy’s employees were not state agents and Officer Bush’s limited presence did not convert encounter into police custody; even if error, admission harmless because oral confession occurred earlier
Whether Salley’s narration of surveillance video amounted to improper lay opinion	Paige: Salley offered impermissible lay opinion/interpretation beyond facts shown on tape (e.g., characterizing bag as “full”/changed size)	State: Salley had personal knowledge, operated cameras, witnessed events live, and narration was helpful and within Md. Rule 5‑701 limits	Court: Challenge largely unpreserved; in any event testimony was rationally based on Salley’s perception and experience and was helpful to the jury, so admission not an abuse of discretion

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (Miranda warnings required for custodial interrogation)
Pratt v. State, 9 Md. App. 220 (1970) (private security may be state actor if vested with police powers)
Waters v. State, 320 Md. 52 (1990) (licensed private security guards are generally private actors; state action must be shown)
J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 131 S. Ct. 2394 (2011) (Miranda applies only to custodial interrogation)
Cuzick v. Commonwealth, 276 S.W.3d 260 (Ky. 2009) (officer narration of video is permissible lay testimony when based on personal perception and helpful to jury)